From the Editor
Share This
At MintLife, our mission is to give users and visitors the financial information they need to save and do more with their money. Topics range from personal finance advice, to analysis of macroeconomic trends and the fiscal impacts of news of the day. We publish content from a variety of contributors and sources, and the opinions expressed don’t necessarily reflect those of Mint.com or of Intuit.
It’s true that the tone is often provocative, seeking to engage readers in dialogue around important topics, but the recent blog post “The Economic Impact of Immigration” went too far, cited polarized sources and did not receive the editorial judgment and oversight it deserved.
We regret it. It is completely unacceptable and won’t happen again. Our intention was not to further the agenda of any of the sources from which data was pulled, and the post has been removed.
- Lee Sherman, Editor of MintLife
Related Articles
Related Videos
Popular Articles
30 Comments so far
leave a commentApology is accepted, but deletion of post is unacceptable.
Perhaps a good idea would be to release a similar infographic with data from non-polarized sources? I say this merely as a casual observer who is curious what the accurate numbers would be for many of the statistics listed.
Please replace the post. It was good information and put dollar signs into the debate of ideas. So far the debate has been emotionally focused, and having numbers to back up ideas (for or against) are useful to those of us who want to discern the truth.
Replace the post, please.
I like the idea the others have – you should have to redo the assignment in a fair and non-biased manner since you screwed it up the first time.
If the information in the info graphic was true, then I don’t see any issue with it being posted. The goal of the internet is to spread information, and even if a source was polarized, just post something else from the other angle, and let the reader make their own decision on which is more “in line” with their views. Its unfair to the internet as a source of human knowledge to keep posting and then removing things just because people are offended.
Thank you for deleting this post. I was incredibly shocked to see that on a blog that I read and respect!
Apology accepted
Thank you for the apology and the retraction. It was appropriate and demonstrated a public humility that is severely lacking in the U.S.
I agree with above. I found the numbers interesting and wished to use it as a reference in the future. It is a touchy topic, but that makes the need for facts and numbers that much more important. You gave resources, which anyone can review if they wished to research it more.
The problem is that the post put the wrong numbers (apparently made up numbers) into dollars. If you really want to discern the truth then you would want verifiably accurate numbers.
I truly hope that this site backs away from the political tinges that seem to have emerged lately.
I didn’t read the post, so please put it back. Do your homework and rewrite the article. Also, if you believe in something, don’t make an apology — rather take a stand and don’t try to be “politically correct”.
I’m sick of Americans that don’t practice freedom of speech and say what they really feel. We sensor ourselves until we are ignorant, uninteresting clones.
“cited polarized sources and did not receive the editorial judgment and oversight it deserved”
But was it WRONG?
Anything other than “was it wrong” is just talking about hurt feelings.
I agree with others, it would be great if a carefully sourced and more accurate post about the same issue were posted. Some of the original data was verifiable, but much of it was completely made up and easy to disprove (ie, you can’t get food stamps without a social security number, and while some illegal immigrants have ‘obtained’ social security numbers, what percentage? what percentage use illegal ssns for purposes other than employment?)
In addition, the infographic looked only at spending on illegal immigrants, and not at their contributions (ie, job creation, money savings, and tax (including income tax) payments. Because context is everything, I would appreciate seeing spending and contributions by illegal immigrants compared to spending and contributions by citizens (both born and naturalized, of course).
You should definitely repost! It would be nice to see real 3rd party unbiased info.
Instead of deleting the post, you should have published a correction.
While the original post was shockingly poorly researched, deletion makes it look like you took down facts because of political incorrectness – which was obviously not the case.
I agree with the above commenters that censoring the post in question is a poor choice. You should also link to the critics of the post, here and here. Assuming the numbers cited were incorrect, then an actual correction should be placed here.
I’d like to see the real numbers. Please re-post.
Thank you for deleting an incendiary post that did nothing to further illuminate an already murky debate. I am a fan of Mint and have been a patron since the earliest Beta days, but I would have had to delete my account if I thought I was in any way contributing to an organization that was unwilling/unable to do their due diligence prior to posting on such a hot button issue. I don’t have to always agree with an organization’s POV, but at the very least I would expect that they approach the debate with ALL the information in hand, which was decidedly NOT the case in the earlier post.
Natalie, seeing as you read the earlier post, what exactly did you find incendiary? Do you not realize how much time and $ is being spent on enforcing immigration law? How about Obama trying to sue AZ…does that fit your ideal of ‘further illumination’?
This is completely ludicrous that you removed a post because it happened to be a bit too conservative for certain people. This is America for god’s sake. What’s next, no guns?
Also, you really think that The Mint is the first website to post arbitrary facts? Why don’t we just shut down Wikipedia?
Deleting the post was weak. Adding a disclaimer saying you regret it being too polarizing would have been fine.
If the post had errors, fix and repost. If it was accurate, repost. Just because people don’t like the truth doesn’t mean you can’t state it.
I’m sick of companies not wanting to post facts because the data isn’t favorable according to the media or because it’s a hot topic. Just because you might lose a few people who are upset Mint posts facts, doesn’t make it necessary to apologize and delete it. Post something, and stand by it.
Nice post Mr. Editor.
The commenters above are CORRECT to ask you to replace the post with a well-researched and documented article on the same topic, but I implore you not to do it.
Please do a better job editing your writers – and leave the politics out. Your reputation is damaged when you swim out too far from shore. Becoming a provocative blogger will hurt your brand.
Please repost! We stand with the editor. Mint has gone politically correct on us.
Please put the post back up and just cite the sources per graphic (unless most were from polarized sources) — or, better yet, do the research necessary and repost the graphic with GOOD info. Those are numbers I’d be interested in seeing. You could even post a range and median to avoid furthering any group’s idea.
I agree that this article should not have been removed. It implies that we, as adults, are unable to make decisions or formulate opinions on our own.
Most media coming into our homes and TV sets are biased, and we should not be afraid of opinions or dialogue on either side of the discussion.
Don’t pander to either side — put the article out there and let people decide for themselves.
To the editor,
You already accomplished the difficult part, which was acknowledging that you published material using biased/ questionable data sources, yet not identifying them as such. Your June 18 apology clearly demonstrates integrity and social responsibility.
The next step should be to republish the graphic, with annotations identifying the sections based on data from those sources. You ARE protected by the First Amendment, and while you could’ve certainly left the infographic image unchanged, I suspect that the charter and objectives of Mint.com don’t include a political or social policy agenda.
But it is not right that you should feel so pressured that you retracted and completely removed the chart! Please re-publish it, annotated as you see fit. In that way, you are not making any statement of opinion regarding social policy, but instead, showcasing best practices of journalism, as well as supporting our right to free speech.
Whether you amend the chart and reissue entirely is not that relevant. However, if you choose to do so, it is imperative that you first re-release the annotated original version of the chart and keep it available on the web. Otherwise there is the implication that you retracted work because it wasn’t received favorably by the public, and yielded to public opinion by presenting a revised version of your original data-driven content. That isn’t quite the case, but it wouldn’t be far from the truth.
Please re-place the chart as published originally, with corrections and caveats?
I admire the way you handled this one — it’s rare to see such a candid and sincere message from a big company. Kudos Lee and Intuit.
While I am also curious about the post that caused such controversy I believe you’ve done the right thing by pulling the post. If the data was poorly sourced (and not something you stand behind in retrospect) it shouldn’t have a place here.
You learn a lot about a company when they make a mistake…nice to see you guys do the right thing.